I

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "11-20 31-50 0-30 7-12 I"

是祚司马
7 years ago
Views:

1 The Study of Visual Art Teachers of Elementary School Affect Their Children s Learning of Visual Arts in Taichung City

2 I

3 II

4 The Study of Visual Art Teachers of Elementary School Affect Their Children s Learning of Visual Arts in Taichung City Abstract The purposes of this study are fourfold. Firstly, to investigate the backgrounds of visual art teachers of elementary schools in Taichung City. Secondly, to inquire situations of visual art teachers affecting their children s learning in visual art aspect. Thirdly, to explore the differences between different backgrounds of visual art teachers affecting their children s learning in the visual art area. Finally, to list some suggestions for visual art teachers when nurturing their children. This study adopts both survey and interview approaches to do research. The samples, amounting to 314, are drawn from visual art teachers of elementary schools in Taichung City. They all are asked to complete one questionnaire edited by the researcher and some of them accept an interview for advanced studies. All of the data is analyzed by some statistical methods, including descriptive statistics, T-test, and one-way ANOVA. The results of this study are listed as follows: 1. The visual art teachers have positive nurturing beliefs, adequate nurture goals, proper nurture behavior, and can make a suitable nurturing environment. 2. The average score in the nurture belief aspect is higher than the other three ones. 3. The item of When children do a good job, I ll praise him/her gets a higher score than the others. 4. The item of I hope children will do visual art jobs gets a lower score than the others. 5. The teachers who majored in visual arts have a more significant influence on their children s growth of learning in visual arts than those who didn t major in visual arts. 6. The teachers whose children have attended art classes have more significant influence on their children s growth of learning in visual arts than the ones, who haven t. 7. The teachers whose ages are 41 to 50 and 31 to 40 perform well than those who are beyond 50 or between 21 to 30 in the nurture environment aspect. 8. The teachers who are from junior colleges perform better than those who are from colleges and masters in nurture behavior aspect. 9. The teachers who attend more further classes have more significant influence III

Secondly, to inquire situations of visual art teachers affecting their children s learning in visual art aspect.

5 on their children s growth of learning in visual arts than those who do less. 10. There are no significant differences in the background variables of service years, teaching attributions, and children s ages. According above results, some suggestions are presented for practitioners, schools, and some institutions. Besides, some limitations are also listed for further studies to improve them. Key words: visual art teacher of elementary school, nurture belief, nurture environment, nurture goal, nurture behavior IV

According above results, some suggestions are presented for practitioners, schools, and some institutions.

6 V

7 VI

8 N N VII

.. 73 3-2... 77 4-1...... 82 4-2......... 83 4-3...... 84 4-4...... 85 4-5.

9 t N= t N= N= N= N= N= N= VIII

..... 107 4-17 t N=314... 109 4-18 N=314... 111 4-19 N=314.

10 N= N= IX

11 2-1Super X

........... 84 4-4............ 85 4-5... 86 4-6.

12 Stanley

13 1993 Ginsbery Wiseman Manchester Survey

14 Parsons

17 1995 visual arts 6

18 2003 Rokeach

19 8

20 Personality Personna Mask 9

21 innerself outwardexpression Sullivan Guilford Allport Eysenck

22 1995 artistic investigative realistic social enterprising conventional Ray Cattell extraversion anxiety introversion anxiety high intelligence extraversion relaxed though minded high intelligence

25 1984 : ( 1985) ( 1983) Profession Competencies

26 (1995) 1981 Pinchast 2002 Shulman 1. (contentknowledge) 2. (general pedagogical knowledge) 3. (curriculumknowledge) 4. (pedagogical content knowledge) 15

27 5. (knowledge oflearners and their characteristics) 6. (knowledge of educationalcontexts) 7. (knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values, andtheir philosophical and historical ground) Shulman

28 A.B.C.D. 1. E

29 McFee Meier craftsman attitude 2. volitional perseveration 3. aesthetic intelligence 18

30 4. perceptual facility 5. creative imagination 6. aesthetic judgment 2003 Ellsworth D.B.A.E

32 a. b. c. d. e. f. 2 a. b. c. d. e. f. 21

33 Picasso 1999 visual culture

34 2001 Super Super role salience Super Super 23

39 28

40 Homer Terril Lane

41 Lansing Yochim

42 塗鴉期無法控制

43 探索期

44 Eisner 1. 1 function pleasure 2 pictographs 33

45 3 representational 4 aesthetic-expressive Viktor Lowenfeld 1. The scribbling stage ~ 2. The preschematic stage ~ 3. The schematic stage ~ 4. The gane age ~ 5. The stage of reasoning ~ 6. The crisis of adolescence 1. sensorimotor period 2. preoperational period egocentrism 3. concrete operational period 34

46 4. formal operational period

50 Kindler1999

51 1999 Kindler child-rearing

52 Sears ( ) ( ) ( ) Darling Steinberg

53 Mead Freud Amoid Gesell 42

54 1. 1 Gesell Gesell 2 Gesell 3 Gesell / 2. Gesell 1 2 Alfred Alder 43

55 1. Alder Alder Alder PiagetKohlberg Piaget 44

56 Carl Rogers 1947 Mead Bowlby 45

57 single-dimension two-dimension multi-dimension Baumrind (1971) authoritative (authoritarian) (permissive) 1993 Single-dimension Baldwin 3 acceptance democrazy indulgence 1962 Elder Pumroy 4 indulgent disciplinarian rejecting protective 1967 Baumrind 3 authoritative (authoritarian) 1967 Huffman & Saltzstein 3 (permissive) (power assertion) (love withdrawal) (Induction) 1972 Hurlock 8 overprotective oerindulgence 46

58 rejection acceptance dominance submission favorite expection Pulkkinen (two-dimension) William Becker - - anxious emotional involvement vs. calm detachment William authority4 - loving Schaefer / warmth vs.hostility 4 overprotective authoritarian democratic 47

59 / control vs.autonomy neglecting 1961 Bronfenbrenner control support 1963 Elder power 1974 Mussen, et al Liebert & Nelson / / induction / / / / acceptance vs. rejection / permissiveness vs. restrictiveness Maccoby & Martin demand4 Authoritative-Reciprocal responsivenes Authoritative-Autocratic Indulgent-Permissive Indifferent-Uninvolved

60 (Multi-dimension) Becker anxious emotional involvement vs. calm detachment Becker restrictiveness vs. ermissiveness warmth vs. hostility indulg ent democratic anxiousneurotic neglectful rigid controlling authoritative anxious emotional involvement organized vs. clam detachment effective 1972 Armentr out Burger acceptance vs. rejection control vs. autonomy (overprotective 49

61 firm control vs. lax control 1974 Li dominance and harshness obedience strictness and fostering dependency communication,friendship and sharing Macobby & Martin Macobby &Martin Macobby & Martin

62 /

63 1960~ b Miller a Sigel Sigel 52

64 Sigel Sigel 1999a 1995

65 Gordon Mussen 54

66 1994 Sears 2001 Stafford Bayer

70 %

76 (Panel Study of Family Dynamics PSFD) 65

77 2. 3. Bernstein

81 8. Likert

83 72 Cronbach

86 75

89 SPSS TR TT

90 79 gannt chart

91 80 SPSS10.0 Cronbach SPSS10.0 Frequency Percent t t-test ANOVA F p<.05 scheffe

92 81

99 N N

100

101

102

103

104

105 M4.06 M4. 12 M M4. 06 M

106 M M

107 3 4 M M M M M M

108

109 M M M M

110

111 M M M M

112

113 4-15 t t13 b12 g2 g3 e10 b8 b10 g1 b7 b6 e4 e7 b9 g t e e t t t2 t8 t7 g b e e g t e b t e b

114 e e g8 b b t t t b t g g g b1~b12 e1~e11 g1~g10 t1~t

115 M4.52 M3.22

116 TR1373 t t t t0.138p0.01 t t0.920p

117 106 t0.318p0.01 t0.122p0.05 t0.071p M M M51.03 M48.80 M46.42 M44.66 M40.43 M39.20 M58.53 M55.92

118 4-16 t N=314 t *p0.05 **p0.01 ***p *** ** * ** ** 107

119 108 t t0.224 p0.05 t t0.162p0.05 t0.448p0.05 t0.252p0.05 t0.347p M M M52.09 M49.09

120 M48.18 M44.81 M42.18 M39.22 M60.62 M t N=314 t ** *** *** *** *p0.05 **p0.01 ***p *** 109

121 F0.925P0.05 F0.982 P0.05 F1.023P0.05 F0.878P0.05 F0.492 P

122 4-18 N=314 F *p0.05 **p0.01 ***p

123 F1.850P0.05 F1.064P 0.05 F1.598P0.05 F0.883P0.05 F2.657P M M M M

124 4-19 N=314 F * *p0.05 **p0.01 ***p

125 F2.513P0.05 F0.982 P0.05 F1.260P0.05 F2.216P0.05 F3.154P 0.05 Scheffe 4-19 M59.90 M56.82 M54.41

126 4-20 N=314 F * *p0.05 **p0.01 ***p

127 F2.276P0.05 F2.193 P0.05 F1.126P0.05 F2.602P0.05 F2.231 P

128 4-21 N=314 F *p0.05 **p0.01 ***p

129 F5.828P0.01 F3.440 P0.05 F6.481P0.01 F3.661P0.05 F4.221 P0.05 Scheffes M M

130 4-22 N=314 F * ** 2> * * 2> *p0.05 **p0.01 ***p ** 2>1 119

131 F1.206P0.05F0.388P0.05 F0.909P0.05 F1.098P0.05 F1.982P0.05 F1.401P0.05 F1.391P0.05 F0.611P0.05 F0.341P0.05 F0.163P

132 N=314 F *p0.05 **p0.01 ***p

133 N=94 F *p0.05 **p0.01 ***p0.001

134 Efland(1993) 123

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145 7 134

146

147

148

149

150

151 140

152

153

154 M4.52

155 144 M

156

157

158

159

160

161

162 151

163

164 60 153

165 154

166

167 U 2002 (1995) a b

168

169

170 Barbara S. Stanley

171 (3)

172 ~ l l2

173

174 Efland, A. (1993). Teaching and learning the arts. Art Education Policy Review, 94(5), Eisner, E. W.(1966). The development of information and attitude toward art at the secondary and college level. Studies in Art Education,8(1),43. Howe,M.J.A.(1999). Genius Explained.Cambridge,U.K:Cambridge University Press. Clark,G. Zimmerman,E.(1981). Toward a discipline of art education. Phi Delta Kappan,63, Kindler, A. M. Rita L. I. (1999). Beyond the school/community and institutional partnerships in art education. VANational Art Education Association. Lansing, K. M. (1971). Art, artists and art education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Parsons, M. J. (1999). What we learn through art: habits of mind and multiplicity. The Prospects of Art Education In The 21st Century: An International Symposium In Art Education, Tichung: Taiwan Museum of Art. Pinchas, T. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education.teaching & Teacher Education, 4(2), Rokeach, M. (1980). Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. SanFrancisco: Jossey-bassIns. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), Yochim, L. D. (1976). Perceptual growth in creativity. Pennsylvania: Internation Textbook Company. Zimmerman, E. D. (1998. Further commentary: Response to Burton s survey of current research in art education. Studies in Art Education, 39(2),

175 Sigel, I. E. (1985). A conceptual analysis of beliefs. Parental belief systems The psychological consequences for children. Hillsdale, NJErlbaum.1 Sigel, I. E. (1999). Development of mental representation :theories and applications. Mahwah, NJ :L. Erlbaum Associates. Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a MessyConstruct. Review of Educational Research. 62(3) Super,D.E. (1980.A life-span,life-space approach to career development.journal of Vocational Behavior,16,

176 165

177 166

178 167

179 168

180 169

181 170

182 171

183 172

184 173

185 174

186 175

187 176

188 177

189 178

190 179

191

192 181 a. b. c. d.

193 182

194 a. b. c. 183

195 d. 184

196 185

197 186

198 187

199 188

200 189

201 190

202 191

203 192

204 193

南華大學數位論文

南華大學數位論文南華大學視覺與媒體藝術學系碩士班碩士論文運用圖畫書建置幼兒藝術統整課程之行動研究 An Action Study of using Picture Books to construct Children s Arts Integrated Curriculum 研究生 : 謝佳雯指導教授 : 葉宗和中